g

GER-4207

GE Power Systems

GE IGCC Technology
and Experience with
Advanced Gas
Turbines
R. Daniel Brdar
Robert M. Jones
GE Power Systems
Schenectady, NY

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Gas Turbine Low Calorific Value (LCV) Fuel Capability and Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
GT Fuel Flexibility with Variable IGCC Process Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Environmental Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Economic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Project Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

ii

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

Introduction
Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC)
systems continue to penetrate the power generation market. General Electric has 17 projects
in design, construction or operation totaling
more than 3 GW of capacity. These projects
range from 12 MW up to 550 MW in a variety of
configurations incorporating eight different
gasification technologies employing heavy oil,
petroleum coke, coal, biomass and waste materials as feedstock. Half of these projects are now
in operation and have accumulated over
250,000 fired hours of syngas experience while
simultaneously demonstrating excellent environmental performance. Power generation
availability has also been excellent, in excess of
90%, due to the ability of GE gas turbines to
switch between fuels under load and co-fire
multiple fuels.
In addition, IGCC capital cost continues to
drop through advances in technology and the
incorporation of lessons learned from operating facilities. The ability of IGCC systems to use
low value feedstock and produce high value coproducts along with power enhances the economic viability of new projects. The economics
of IGCC systems now allow the technology to
successfully compete in competitive power bidding situations where low cost indigenous gas is
not available. The introduction of the next generation of gas turbine technology is expected to
further reduce the capital cost of IGCC systems.

approach to combustion systems provides significant advantages in LCV applications, particularly the ability to conduct combustion testing
prior to equipment shipment.
This testing is conducted at a unique facility
located in Schenectady, NY. (See Figure 1.) The
Combustion Development Laboratory has a
high-pressure test stand for each heavy-duty gas
turbine model (6B, 6FA, 7EA, 7FA, 9E, 9EC,
9FA) as well as a component test rig. Using
these test stands, a single combustion can is
tested with a simulated syngas under full pressure and flow conditions. As opposed to partial
flow and pressure conditions, full flow and pressure conditions enable the performance characteristics of an individual combustion can to be
readily translated to full machine performance.
This ability to test at full flow and pressure conditions has been one of the single largest contributors to the successful start-up and operation of GE gas turbines in LCV gas applications.
Due to the unique demands on the combustion
system by LCV gases, full characterization of
combustor performance is essential. This testing involves considerably more than a simple
verification of combustion stability. It is important to address combustor operation and its
affect on overall gas turbine operation. As a
result, a wide variety of tests are conducted for

Gas Turbine Low Calorific Value (LCV)

Fuel Capability and Experience
The ability to successfully burn LCV fuels over
varying conditions requires significant combustion expertise. Since 1990, the can-annular
combustion systems employed by GE have been
modified to handle a wide variety of fuels and
fuel mixtures. In addition, the can-annular
GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

Figure 1. GE Combustion Development Laboratory

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

all unique LCV gases. Figure 2 shows the list of
typical combustion tests and variables. The purpose of these tests is to evaluate combustor and
machine performance as load conditions, LCV
gas composition, fuel mixtures, ambient conditions, diluent composition and conditions and
other factors vary. As these conditions change,
an assessment of combustion dynamics, metal
temperatures, system pressure losses, emissions,
and exit temperature profiles is conducted.

Combustion Test Parameters

Combustion Parameters

Test Parameters

Emissions

- NO, NO x, CO, UHC, O 2, CO2

Combustor Metal Temperatures

Combustion Dynamic Pressures
Combustor Exit Temperature Profiles
Combustion System Pressure Drop
Air Extraction Limits
Power Augmentation Limits
Combustion System Temperatures
and Pressures

Air Flow and Temperature

Air Extraction Flow
Diluent (Inert) Injection Flow
Syngas Composition
Syngas Temperature
Conventional Fuel Flow
Syngas/Conventional Fuel Split
Power Augmentation Flow
Combustor Exit Temperature

lower (moving to the left on the flammability

curve), flammability limits narrow and the combustion process itself becomes more sensitive to
changes in calorific value. Changes in the gas
composition of very low calorific value gases
such as blast furnace gas (BFG) can quickly
move a gas from flammable to the non-flammable region of the chart. As a result, GE has
developed special designs to accommodate very
low heating value fuels such as BFG. The
unique capabilities of the Combustion
Development Lab allow GE to fully explore
these issues and design LCV combustion systems for a specific application. Combustion
issues can be explored in the lab and solutions
implemented in the combustion system design
and production hardware prior to actual field
operation.

Turn Down
- Minimum Temperature Rise
- Minimum Calorific Value

GT24485 . ppt

Figure 2. Combustion test parameters

LCV gases can vary widely from one application
to another and are highly dependent on the
particular process producing the gas, the oxidant used in the process and the process feedstock. For example, the LCV gas produced by
an air-blown, coal-fueled, fluid bed gasifier will
differ significantly in composition from an oxygen-blown, vacuum residue-fueled, entrainedflow gasifier. The resulting gas composition,
flammability and calorific value work in concert
to form the basis for the combustion system
design and response.
Most LCV gases have a wide range of flammability when compared to more conventional
fuels such as natural gas. In Figure 3 it can be
shown that there is considerable difference
between the rich and lean fuel firing limits for
most LCV fuels. As gas calorific value becomes

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

Figure 3. Syngas flammability limits

As shown in Table 2, as of March 2000, GE gas
turbines applied to LCV applications have accumulated approximately 260,000 syngas-fired
hours with the three 109E combined cycles at
ILVA representing the fleet leader with more
than 78,000 hours of operation. GE gas turbines
burning LCV gas encompass a wide variety of
operational demands, varying gas compositions, and gas turbine frame sizes and include
"E" and "F" level gas turbine technology. Some
units such as the 6FAs at Exxon Singapore are

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

expected to operate at 40 discrete points while
others such as the 7FA at Tampa Electric are
designed to operate at baseload conditions on
syngas once the unit has achieved startup. The
composition of the syngas consumed in these
operating units also varies considerably from
project to project. A measure of this project-toproject variability is the hydrogen content of
the fuel. As shown in Table 3, the hydrogen content of these operating units varies widely from
a low of 8.6% at ILVA to a high of 61.9% at
Schwarze Pumpe with heating values of 193 and
318 Btu/SCF respectively. These diverse conditions and operating demands emphasize the
importance of sound combustion system
design.
Based on the operating history of these units, it
is clear that GE gas turbines and combined
cycles applied to LCV applications can achieve
reliability, availability and maintainability
(RAM) performance levels comparable to natural gas-fueled units. The use of a properly
designed dual-fuel combustion system and its
controls are key to achieving these RAM levels.

GT Fuel Flexibility with Variable IGCC

Process Operations
For IGCC high-hydrogen content syngas fuels,
GE gas turbine units include dual fuel capability (syngas/natural gas or syngas/liquid). A conventional fuel is required for startup and shutdown, although the combustion and control systems are designed to operate over the entire
load range on either fuel. Depending upon the
quantity of syngas available, the unit may be
operated in a variety of fuel conditions ranging
from co-firing (i.e. startup fuel and syngas), to
full syngas firing at rated load conditions.
During normal process operations, where the
syngas production matches the turbine fuel
requirements, the unit is transferred fully onto

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

syngas, and may utilize supplemental diluent

injection (e.g. nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or
steam), to effect NOx emission control and/or
augment power production.
When process operations change whereby syngas fuel becomes limited or otherwise unable to
meet the total turbine fuel requirements, a
transfer back to co-fired operations using startup fuel is selected or can be automated to hold
power to operating limits. While operating in
co-fired or mixed-fuel mode, fuel input limits
(expressed as a percentage of total heat input to
the gas turbine), on each fuel are imposed in
order to maintain minimum allowable pressure
drop conditions. The limits for co-firing syngas/liquid are typically 90% / 10% syngas/liquid to 30% / 70% syngas/liquid. Since each gas
passage in the fuel nozzle is essentially a fixed
orifice, the minimum syngas flow corresponds
to a minimum allowable pressure drop across
the particular gas nozzle, which in turn has
been determined for each system primarily to
avoid unacceptable pressure fluctuations (combustion dynamics). A minimum pressure ratio is
also required to maintain adequate can-to-can
fuel distribution as well as avoiding cross flow
from can-to-can. The minimum liquid flow
being that required to avoid overheating of fuel
pumps and again to establish good fuel distribution.
For dual gas fuel (syngas/natural gas) systems,
the minimum gas flow requirement can be substantially reduced below 30% heat input by
using a variety of control schemes that may
include a combination of co-firing and fuel
blending. The Shell Pernis fuel system, for
example, operates on a variety of syngas, natural
gas, LPG mixtures, as well as 100% natural gas
as illustrated in Figure 4. A similar system has
been applied to the Exxon Singpore gasification project to meet operational requirements

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

IGCC Mixed Fuel Capability

For a Dual Fuel GT (Gas/Natural Gas)
100

% Load

Mix Permitted
(Allowable Splits)

Shaded: Mix
Not Permitted

Approx 20
% Split

0
0

10

50

90

100

100

90

50

10

% Split Is in Terms of % GT Total Heat Consumption

% Natural Gas
% Syngas

BKGT25004A . ppt

Figure 4. Mixed fuel firing

which allow for a 90% / 10% split on syngas and
natural gas as illustrated in Figure 4. Nominally,
for a dual gas dual manifold system without
blending, the minimum fuel split for any one
gas is 30% by heat input at rated load.
Variation in syngas production can be compensated by co-fired operations when constant output is necessary. For example, in cases where
the quantity of available syngas is changing due
to chemical co-production priorities, a modulating fuel split arrangement can be utilized
where the percent syngas firing is continuously
adjusted to match the process operations. The
co-fired fuel is then raised or lowered to maintain turbine output on load control. While cofiring operations may increase operating costs,
the revenue gained from incremental kilowatt
hour generation may more than compensate
with improved generation capacity factors accumulated over annual operating periods.
The gas turbine when fully fired on typical syngas compositions has the potential to develop
enhanced power output capacity due in large
part to the significant flow rate increase (~14%
incr. over natural gas), resulting from the low
heating value fuel combustion products passing
through the turbine. Figure 5 shows the 20-25%
higher ratings that are normally achieved when

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

operating on syngas, and illustrates the potential for flat ratings across the ambient temperature range. These increased ratings take into
account the GE criteria for parts lives which
requires a reduction in syngas firing temperatures to maintain hot gas path parts at temperatures similar to natural gas units. The higher
turbine flow and moisture content of the combustion products can contribute to overheating
of turbine components. The insert in Figure 6,
shows that these effects, uncontrolled, could
lead to life cycle reductions on the stage 1
bucket of more than half. GE IGCC control systems include provisions to compensate for
these effects.

Natural Gas 2%

NG Exhaust 102%
CG Exhaust 116%

Coal Gas
16%
Air - 100%

Gen

6FA 7FA 9EC 9FA 7H

9H

GT
90 MW
200 MW
215 MW
300 MW

IGCC
126 MW
280 MW
300 MW
420 MW
460 MW
550 MW

Gas Turbine
Low He

14% Difference in Flow at

Same Firing Temperature
Makes 28% More Output
(No Compression Power)

20% Extra Output

7F
Output
MW
60 Hz

ating
Va

lue G

as

Flat-Rated Region

9F
Output
MW
50 Hz

Natu
ral G
as

59 F
15 C
Ambient Temperature

GT23887G

Figure 5. IGCC output enhancement

Since fuel process operations do not vary significantly with ambient operating conditions, the
gas turbine power train provides nearly constant output generation when linked to syngas
fuel production. At low ambients the gas turbine airflow is regulated by variable inlet guide
vane (IGV) position to maintain constant
fuel/air ratios. As ambient temperatures
increase, IGVs open to maintain airflow until
full open position is reached. The flat output
rating may be further extended to higher ambients by utilizing surplus process steam and/or
nitrogen injection for power augmentation.
Such an arrangement is employed at the Tampa

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

Syngas - Reliability / Availability / Maintenance
Need Automatic Fuel
Switch/Nitrogen Purge

Need Clean Syngas

Reduced Firing Temp to Maintain
Design Metal Temp / 100% Life

Life Fraction

Syngas Combined Cycle Can Have Same Performance as

Natural Gas Combined Cycle

1
0.8

IGCC Control
System

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Lessons Learned

10

1984 Cool Water

- 3 Year Program to Reach 80% Availability (CC at 95%)

30

40

Purge Solution)

1996 Tampa

- 1 Year Program - Auto Fuel Switching (N

1996 PSI

- Some Cracking of Combustors - Replaced Successfully

With Tampa Design

1996 El Dorado

- Successful Start-Up First Try

- 1997 - 99.7% Availability of GT
- 1998 - 98.0% Availability of GT

20
Vol % H2O in Exhaust

Proven Experience Important

GT26110A .ppt

Figure 6. Effect on firing temperature

Electric Polk IGCC project where gas turbine
output is maintained nearly constant for ambient temperature conditons up to 32C/90F
with process nitrogen injection.

Environmental Costs
IGCC plants sited to date offer designs that
exhibit superior environmental performance
compared with generation alternatives using
similar feedstocks. Emission pollutants can
include low levels of oxides of nitrogen (NO
and NO2), carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter. In particular, the emission of acid rain pollutants (including NO2 and SO2), from gas turbines fueled by syngas are to a large degree
characterized and controlled by process design
and integration with the turbine combustion
system. Figure 7 lists NOx emission levels
achieved to date with GE gas turbine units operating at several plant facilities over the past fifteen years, in addition to predicted levels for
other IGCC sites currently under construction.
Typically, with oxygen-enriched gasification
processes, nitrogen is readily available for direct
injection into the gas turbine combustion sys-

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

IGCC Environmental Performance

Operating
Cool Water
PSI - Wabash
Tampa - Polk
Texaco - El Dorado
Predicted
Sierra Pacific
Motiva Delaware
Sarlux
Fife

NOx ( ppmdv @15% O2)

25
<20
<20
<25

<42 (<9 Thermal)

9-15
<30
<42

Figure 7. IGCC NOx emissions

tem as a primary diluent for NOx control.
Similarly, for syngas processes where nitrogen is
not available, fuel moisturization using a
process saturator is extremely effective in reducing combustion flame temperatures to control
NOx emissions. GE has performed extensive
laboratory testing using lower calorific value
syngas to evaluate combustion system performance including flame stability and efficiency, as
well as emission characterization. Full pressure
and temperature test programs using various
process diluents including: N2, H2O, and CO2,
as shown in Figure 8, illustrate that dramatic
NOx reduction is achievable, even at 1400C

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

combustor exit temperatures, by effective
reduction in equivalent fuel heating value
and
primary flame zone temperatures.
Although many process applications utilize premixing of these diluents with the syngas prior to
delivery to the gas turbine, laboratory testing
has determined there is little difference on the
net effect of emissions reduction between premixing and direct injection into the combustor
reaction zone. GE prefers direct diluent injection into the individual combustors for reasons
associated with controllability, efficiency, and
system cost. For extremely low NOx emission
sites (i.e. < 9 ppmvd @ 15% O2), back end treatment using selective catalytic reduction methods in the exhaust heat recovery equipment
area may become necessary.
Full Load NOx at 15% O2 vs Heating Value
1000

NOx, PPMVD

N2
H2 O

100

10
CO2

Simulated Coal Gas

2550 F/1400C Combustor
Exit Temperature

ing heavy fuels are proving to be superior to

other generation alternatives particularly when
using todays advanced gas turbine technologies. Continued improvements in IGCC cycle
integration coupled together with further technological advances in turbine designs (e.g. GE
model H), are paving the way for higher cycle
efficiency levels that will not be achievable with
competing generation technologies. As a result,
carbon dioxide production per kilowatt of
power generation with IGCC plants burning
these fuels will be the lowest in the industry.
Combustion testing completed earlier this year
at GEs Combustion Development Laboratory
in Schenectady, NY have confirmed stable combustor operations and excellent emission performance characteristics while burning syngas
composed of 50% hydrogen and 50% nitrogen,
allowing for the elimination of nearly all CO2
emissions. IGCC plants, where necessary, can be
readily designed to extract and sequester CO2
from pre-combustion syngas, allowing for virtually carbon-free emissions.

Economic Considerations

0
100

4000

150

5000

200
LHV, Btu/SCF

6000

7000

250

8000

9000

10,000

300

11,000

LHV, kJ/m 3

Figure 8. Effect of diluents for NOx

The residual sulfur compounds remaining in
the syngas following process treatment and
cleanup directly determine sulfur oxide emissions. A variety of process designs are used
which establish the level of sulfur recovery from
the raw syngas. Cost constraints are the primary
consideration, however, sulfur recovery efficiencies in the range of 9899.5% incorporating COS hydrolysis are readily achievable to
meet site permitting requirements.
The thermal performance of IGCC plants burn-

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

Dramatic improvements have been made in

IGCC system capital cost. Solid fuel plants have
been recently bid for less than $1,000/kW on a
turnkey basis. This is 3040% of the cost of the
first few IGCC plants. These capital cost reductions are due to a variety of factors, the most
influential being: 1) gas turbine performance
enhancements; 2) gasification system enhancements; and 3) EPC learning curve effects.
Economics have largely shaped the configurations, applications, and end users of IGCC systems in recent plant decisions. Although early
technology studies focused on coal-based utility
power production, economics now favor a different approach. Most of the later IGCC plants
are constructed by IPPs, predominately in refin-

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

ery applications using refinery bottoms as gasification feedstock and produce electricity and
high value co-products such as hydrogen and
steam for refinery purposes. In these configurations the technology has become very competitive and will continue to drive down costs and
spur innovation.
Based on todays gas turbine technology, applications using solid and liquid opportunity fuels
with cogeneration and/or co-production
schemes are competitive in the marketplace.
Continued technology improvements and optimized cycle and co-production configurations
continue to drive down the capital cost of IGCC
and its resulting cost of electricity. In addition,
coal-based IGCC plants are now a competitive
alternative in countries with severe environmental restrictions or areas that depend on the
use of high-priced power generation fuels such
as LNG.
An example of the continued improvement in
coal-based IGCC performance and economics
is shown in Figure 9. A recent study by GE,
Texaco, Inc. and Praxair, Inc. evaluated a variety
of coal-fueled IGCC configurations based on a
GE 9FA based combined cycle. Through cycle
optimization studies and by incorporating the
lessons learned from operating facilities, cycles
such as the high efficiency quench (HEQ) can

be utilized. The HEQ cycle uses high pressure

quench gasification coupled with a syngas
expander. The HEQ cycle maintains high IGCC
system output while reducing the total capital
cost by eliminating a significant portion of the
high temperature heat exchangers in the gasification plant. The results of the study indicate
that the 9FA HEQ configuration costs 10% less
on a cost of electricity basis than it did just two
years ago. The full results of this study are published in other papers. Continued improvements in gas turbine and gasification system
performance along with increased operating
experience will continue to reduce the investment required on future IGCC plants.
The next generation of gas turbines is expected
to enhance the economic competitiveness of
todays cogeneration/co-production IGCC configurations as well as allow coal-based poweronly IGCC plants to successfully compete in the
market. Technology improvements embodied
in the GE H machine are projected to yield
substantial improvements in performance and
significant reductions in the capital cost of all
IGCC systems. Early studies predict a significant
total capital cost reduction in mature Hbased IGCC systems cost with efficiency reaching 50% (LHV basis) on coal-based power production. Figure 10 shows the relative cost of electricity for various technology and fuel options.

9FA Based HEQ IGCC

Output (MW)

1999
Coal

2000
Oil

408

449

436

Efficiency (%)
- LHV
- HHV
Cost of Electricity*

42.5

43.3

45.1

40.9

41.8

42.8

5.26

4.69

4.39

Figure 9. Continued COE reductions

Differential
Fuel Cost

4
3
Fuel
2
1

O&M
Capital

0
F
H F Ref. H
Coal Coal Bottoms

IPP Economics: 1.5$/Mbtu Coal; 1.0 $/ Mbtu Bottoms, 2.5 $/ Mbtu Gas; 4.0 $/ Mbtu LNG

*(20 yr. levelized)

Combined Cycle IGCC - Coproduction

F
H
F
H
Gas Gas LNG LNG

Another
Another 10%
10% COE
COE Reduction
Reduction

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

C/kWh (20 Yr. Levelized)

Feedstock

1997
Coal

GT26115A .PPT

Figure 10. Cost of electricity comparison

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

In places that do not have cheap indigenous
gas, IGCC is already a competitive technology.
Since IGCC can use dirty, low cost opportunity
fuels, the fuel cost differential further reduces
the cost of electricity. The introduction of H
level gas turbine technology is expected to fundamentally shift the economics of IGCC systems. Studies are currently in progress to more
fully evaluate this potential.

Project Experience
GE leads the world in the application of its
heavy duty gas turbines to gasification combined-cycle gas projects. As of December 1999,
twelve GE heavy-frame gas turbines were operational using synthesis gas from the gasification
of coal, petroleum coke and other low grade
fuels. Seven additional gas turbines at three different plants will become operational in 2000.
These plants are Motiva-Delaware (two 6FAs),
Sarlux (three 109Es), and Exxon Singapore
(two 6FAs). Additional units for gasification
applications are on order with startup dates
ranging from 1999 through 2003. Once these
projects are in operation, a total of 26 GE gas
turbines will be operational with syngas covering the entire product family from PGT10B up
through and including 9FA gas turbines.
The IGCC projects include various levels of
integration with the gasification plant, ranging
from steam-side integration only on many projects, to nitrogen return (Tampa & Motiva), and
full steam and air integration including both air
extraction and nitrogen return (El Dorado,
Pinon Pine). GE turbines are in operation on
syngas-from-gasifier technologies by Texaco
(solid fuels and oil), Destec (coal), GSP (coal
and waste), Shell (oil), and operation with the
Lurgi gasifier (biomass), is scheduled for 2001.
In addition to the synthesis gas applications and
operating experience summarized in Tables 1

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

and 2 below, GE also has numerous turbines in

operation on other special fuel gases, including
refinery gases containing hydrogen, butane,
propane, ethane, and blends of various process
gases. These units include six Frame 3s, seventeen Frame 5s, 19 Frame 6s, and 15 Frame 7EAs.
GEs success with low and medium Btu fuel
gases is a consequence of extensive full-scale
laboratory testing on various fuels for over 15
years at GEs Combustion Development
Laboratory in Schenectady, NY. As mentioned
earlier, this facility provides the unique opportunity to simulate customer specific fuel gas,
and then test a single combustor at full-flow,
full-pressure operations to investigate combustion conditions, and confirm liner cooling and
fuel nozzle designs before fabrication of the
production hardware. Table 3 shows the wide
range of syngas compositions which are being
used on various GE low-Btu projects. Data from
these tests form the basis for emission guarantees, turndown performance, and parts lives
estimates. Most recently GE has made laboratory improvements to incorporate fuel blending
systems. The primary combustibles, namely CO
and H2, are supplied in tube trailers. N2, CO2,
steam, natural gas and ammonia may be blended on-line to achieve the desired fuel composition. With this arrangement, it is now possible
to vary the H2 content as well as the H2/CO
ratio during a test to evaluate hardware capabilities and simulate field operations where syngas
compositions may vary daily to meet changing
chemical co-production requirements.

Conclusions
The successful integration of heavy-duty gas turbine technology with synthetic fuel gas processes using low-value feedstocks is proving to be
commercially viable in the global power generation marketplace. Continuous cost improve-

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

ments in both gas turbine and process plant
design is allowing for significant market penetration into refinery based IGCC applications as
witnessed by several projects currently in operation with additional plants coming on-line by
years end. The introduction of the GE "H" gas
turbine technology raises the prospect for significantly greater cost reductions as power densities and cycle efficiencies set new operational
benchmarks for the foreseeable future.
Gas turbine fuel flexibility and co-firing capability provide additional IGCC economic benefits
allowing for the co-production of other high
value by-products while maintaining high
power generation availability. The capability to
pre-test combustion hardware using simulated
fuel gases at full operating conditions has further demonstrated superior environmental per-

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

formance with coal and other low grade feedstock and provides for optimized integrated
plant designs. In addition to very low emission
levels of particulate, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the potential to remove carbon
dioxide and burn a hydrogen-rich syngas in the
gas turbine may become a significant advantage
for IGCC systems as countries take steps to
reduce their overall carbon dioxide emissions.
Finally, experience gained from several syngas
projects are providing invaluable lessons
learned that continue to foster cost reductions
and improve operational reliability. As additional IGCC plants go operational, further improvements in system performance and plant design
are to be expected drawing from an extensive
successful experience base.

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

Customer

Location

COD

MW

Pwr Block

Cool Water

Barstow, California

1984

120

107E

Application Integration Gasifier

Power

Steam

Texaco

Coal

Fuel

Terre Haute,
Indiana

1996

262

7FA

Power

Steam

Destec

Coal

IGCC
PSI Wabash River
Tampa Electric

Polk, Florida

1996

250

107FA

Power

Steam/N2

Texaco

Coal

Pinon Pine

Sparks, Nevada

1996

100

106FA

Power

Steam/Air

KRW

Coal

Texaco
El Dorado
ILVA ISE

El Dorado, Kansas

1996

40

6B

Cogen

Taranto, Italy

1996

520

3x109E

Cogen

Steam/Air/ Texaco
N2
None
Steel Mill

SUV

Vresova,

1996

350

209E

Cogen

Steam

ZVU

Vresova
SVZ

1996

40

6B

GSP

1997

120

206B

Cogen/
MeOH
Cogen/H2

Steam

Shell Pernis

Czech Rep.
Schwarze Pumpe,
Germany
Pernis, Netherlands

Fife Energy

Fife, Scotland

1999

109

106FA

Power

None

Shell/
Lurgi
Lurgi

Motiva

Delaware City,
Delaware
Sarroch, Italy
Fife, Scotland

1999

180

2-6FA

Cogen

Steam/N2

Texaco

2000
2000

550
350

3x109E
109FA

Cogen
Power

Steam
None

Texaco
Lurgi

Jurong Island,
Singapore
Gujarat,
India
Cascina,
Italy
Gardanne,
France

2000

173

2-6FA

Cogen

None

Texaco

2001

53

106B

Cogen

2001

12

1-PGT10B/1

Power

Steam

Lurgi

2003

400

2x9E

Cogen/H2

Steam

Teaxco

Sierra Pacific

Sarlux
Fife Electric
Exxon
Singapore
IBIL
Sanghi
Bioelettrica
TEF
EDF-Total

Pet
Pet Coke
COG
Coal
Coal/
Waste

Steam

Oil
Coal/
Waste
Pet Coke
Oil
Coal/
Waste
Oil

Steam/Air Carbona

Coal
Wood/
Waste
Oil

Table 1. GE IGCC projects

Customer

Type

MW

Syngas
Start Date

Hours of Operation
Syngas
27,000
17,230

N.G.
-

Dist.
1,000
3,500

Cool Water
PSI

107E
7FA

120
262

5/84
11/95

Tampa
Texaco El Dorado
Sierra Pacific

107FA
6B
106FA

250
40
100

9/96
9/96

18,060
17,180
0

24,100
26,500

4,300
-

SUV Vresova
Schwarze Pumpe
Shell Pernis

209E
6B
2x6B

350
40
120

12/96
9/96
11/97

53,170
21,080
29,770

2,200
18,900

3,400
-

ISE/ILVA
Fife Energy

3x109E
6FA

540
80

11/96

78,950
0
262,440

3,700
11,600
-

GE Totals

Table 2. GE Syngas experience (March 2000)

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

10

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

Syngas

PSI

Tampa

El Dorado

Pernis

Sierra
Pacific

ILVA

IBIL

Schwarze
Pumpe

Sarlux

Fife

Exxon
Singapore

H2

24.8

27.0

35.4

34.4

14.5

8.6

12.7

61.9

22.7

34.4

44.5

CO

39.5

35.6

45.0

35.1

23.6

26.2

15.3

26.2

30.6

55.4

35.4

CH4

1.5

0.1

0.0

0.3

1.3

8.2

3.4

6.9

0.2

5.1

.5

CO2

9.3

12.6

17.1

30.0

5.6

14.0

11.1

2.8

5.6

1.6

17.9
1.4

N2 + AR

2.3

6.8

2.1

0.2

49.3

42.5

46.0

1.8

1.1

3.1

H2O

22.7

18.7

0.4

--

5.7

--

11.5

--

39.8

--

.1

LHV, - Btu/ft 3
- kJ/m 3

212
8350

202
7960

242
9535

209
8235

127
5000

193
7600

115
4530

318
12,520

163
6420

322
12,690

242
9,530

Tfuel , F/ C

570/300

700/371

250/121

200/98

H2/CO Ratio

.63

.75

.79

.98

.62

.33

.83

2.36

Steam

N2/H2O

N2/Steam

Steam

Steam

--

--

Steam

Diluent

1000/538 400/204 1020/549

100/38

392/200 100/38
.74

.62

Moisture Water

350/177
1.25
N2/Steam

Equivalent LHV
- Btu/ft 3

150

118

113*

198

110**

--

115

200

--

116

- kJ/m 3

5910

4650

4450

7800

4334

--

4500

7880

--

--

4600

* Always co-fired with 50% natural gas

** Minimum range
GT25217B

Table 3. Syngas comparison

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

11

GE IGCC Technology and Experience with Advanced Gas Turbines

List of Figures
Figure 1.

GE Combustion Development Laboratory

Figure 2.

Combustion test parameters

Figure 3.

Syngas flammability limits

Figure 4.

Mixed fuel firing

Figure 5.

IGCC output enhancement

Figure 6.

Effect on firing temperature

Figure 7.

IGCC NOx emissions

Figure 8.

Effect of diluents for NOx

Figure 9.

Continued COE reductions

Figure 10.

Cost of Electricity comparison

List of Tables
Table 1.

GE IGCC projects

Table 2.

GE syngas experience (March 2000)

Table 3.

Syngas comparison

GE Power Systems GER-4207 (10/00)

12